by Abu Dharr (Opinion, Crescent International Vol. 54, No. 12, Sha'ban, 1446)
At the time ‘Umar passed on to heavenly company the following were the deputized rulers in the frontier Islamic provinces: Al-Mughirah ibn Shu‘bah al-Thaqafi administering al-Kufah, Abu Musa al-Ash‘ari managing al-Basrah and both of these governors were tasked to stay on in their duties by ‘Uthman for his first year in office. The following year, ‘Uthman relieved al-Mughirah of his duties and replaced him with Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas.
Before his death, ‘Umar had commended that Sa‘d is just as qualified to lead as a successor, and if not in that position then Sa‘d is eligible to be entrusted as a deputy chief. Sa‘d remained in that position for about a year and a half after which ‘Uthman dismissed him.
Some historians believe that ‘Uthman was forced to dismiss Sa‘d. They say that ‘Uthman was upset due to a dispute between Sa‘d and the financial officer at that time Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud. ‘Uthman at first sought to take action against both, but then settled on dismissing Sa‘d from his administering of al-Kufah.
The dispute between them had to do with Sa‘d borrowing some money from the Islamic Treasury and when Ibn Mas‘ud told him to pay it back, Sa‘d said he didn’t have the money and needed more time. ‘Uthman paid back the money and discharged Sa‘d from his governorship. Ibn Mas‘ud was retained as treasurer but Sa‘d was “fired”.
Most historians seem to agree that the above narrative is accurate. But for a rational person there seems to be some discrepancy. ‘Umar would not have vouched for Sa‘d had he (‘Umar) sensed an attitude in Sa‘d’s life that he would try to delay/evade paying back what he owed to the Islamic treasury knowing that ‘Umar had quite an astute evaluation of individuals.
Another discrepancy in the historians’ narrative is the fact that al-Kufah was Islamically liberated from the Persians and the hero in that liberation was none other than Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas. Discharging Sa‘d from his managerial duties in the larger context of Islamic “foreign policy” does not make sense knowing that the defeated Sassanian king Yezdegerd the third, even though he was defeated militarily, was still active in his country or whatever was left of its counties. Persia was no small country; it included what is today all or parts of Afghanistan, Central Asia, ‘Iraq, the Persian Gulf, and Kurdish/Turkish areas.
Some of these areas were liberated by freedom and justice devoted Muslims but other areas were not. Sa‘d the military commander was “in high gear” to unshackle the populations in that panorama when he was “sacked” by ‘Uthman! The gut feeling of this writer is: were ‘Umar alive he would never have dismissed Sa‘d from his administration of al-Kufah.
Besides the Prophet’s family unit, Sa‘d took innocent pride that he was the third person to become Muslim after Abu Bakr and Zayd ibn Harithah. There also seems to be a consensus among the narrators of hadith and historians that Sa‘d was the first to “fire a shot” in Islamic history when he was a fighter in the military expedition of ‘Ubaidah ibn al-Harith ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib.
It should also be known that Sa‘d was one of the few who stood their ground with the Prophet (pbuh) during the battle of Uhud when many Muslims abandoned their positions or ran away. Sa‘d acted as a shield for the Prophet (pbuh) in that battle and was known to be a “sharp-shooter”.
The Prophet (pbuh) in the painful battle of Uhud lauded Sa‘d by saying: ارم سعد! فداك أبي وأمي [Sa‘d! Shoot [your arrows] – spared are you by my father and mother]. This impressive profile: the third to become a committed Muslim, the first to open fire on the enemy, and the Prophet (pbuh) applauding him during the bothersome battle of Uhud, and his leading role in overpowering the Persian empire and toppling it all with the triumphant battle of al-Qadisiyah, and ‘Umar having Sa‘d a member of the Shura and highly recommending him for leadership position – combining all these qualities and merits does not sit well with the explanation that he delayed and equivocated in paying back an un-quantified loan he acquired from the Islamic treasury. That because of this, both Ibn Mas‘ud and ‘Uthman were displeased or annoyed with him.
It is highly unlikely that Ibn Mas‘ud was irritated or troubled by Sa‘d as Ibn Mas‘ud was a very close companion of the Prophet (pbuh) and was very familiar with Sa‘d who was another close companion of the Prophet (pbuh). Later on we will discover that during the time of the Fitnah (what became the first internal Islamic civil war) Sa‘d remained uncommitted to either side – neutral and disinterested.
It may have been Sa‘d’s noninvolvement with either side that concocted such reports and portrayals of him. Had Sa‘d taken the side of Imam ‘Ali he would have been much-admired by the “Shi‘is” and had he taken the side of ‘Uthman he would have been much-admired by ‘Uthman’s supporters. So when he refused to take sides, both sides began to have reservations about him.
The termination of Sa‘d may have been due to the haste in which Bani Umayyah and the Abi Mu‘it in-group wanted to take over the office of khilafah – by hook or by crook! This scheming by the quelled Makkans who were now cunningly Muslims, made their way into the ‘Uthmani “inner circle”.
One indicator of this is that when ‘Uthman sacked Sa‘d he did not appoint as governor of al-Kufah anyone from the Prophet’s closest companions—the Muhajireen or the Ansar such as Talhah, al-Zubair, ‘Abd al-Rahman, etc… What did ‘Uthman do? He appointed al-Walid ibn ‘Uqbah ibn Abi Mu‘it.
This was a person who had no credibility among the true and committed Muslims as he tried to deceive the Prophet (pbuh). He also at one time reverted to kufr after having said he had become a Muslim.
Al-Walid had an infamous and notorious history. Let us familiarize ourselves with this ill-famed individual. The Prophet (pbuh) sent al-Walid to Bani al-Mustaliq to collect some dues. Al-Walid returned to the Prophet (pbuh) and told him that Bani al-Mustaliq refused to pay their dues.
So the Prophet (pbuh) set out on a military expedition to tend to the affair. As this was unfolding, the guidelines of the Qur’an were revealed in the exceling verses of the keen Book to expose the nature of this whole affair. Al-Walid’s lies were exposed from on high. Reacting to that, al-Walid abandoned Islam but he eventually “came back to Islam” when Islam was triumphant and tried his best to polish his public image.
It is said that ‘Umar sent al-Walid to collect the sadaqah from Bani Taghlib in the Arabian Peninsula. But there is a difference of magnitude between ‘Umar or one of ‘Umar’s deputies sending al-Walid to collect what is administratively due upon some Arabian Christians in the Peninsula and ‘Uthman’s appointing al-Walid as governor of one of the most militarily important and critical provinces of the Islamic homeland and, above all that, to replace Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas with him. Make no mistake about it—‘Uthman’s appointment of al-Walid ibn ‘Uqbah was a very serious and destabilizing mistake.
It was concerning al-Walid ibn ‘Uqbah that the following ayats were brought to light:
O you who are firmly committed [to Allah’s knowledge of the unknown]! If any depraved person comes to you with [slanderous and propagandistic] information, you are ordered [by Us] to verify it lest you [falsely] accuse people because of erroneous information and then afterward feel regretful for what you have done [relying on such false information] -- Al-Hujurat, ayah 6.